The article is here.
If anyone is looking for the best argument (in my mind) as to why Obama needs to be the next President of the United States, I believe this article does an excellent job of summarizing why.
In an exchange I had with AnonymousIsAWoman a week or so ago in a thread here, I mentioned that I thought this aspect of Obama's candidacy was the most important reason that I supported him -- that he and his advisors represented the cleanest break from the failed foreign policy this country has been chasing further and further down the rabbit hole since 9/11 (and arguably before). I also mentioned that I hoped to write a diary on this to explore these issues.
Well, luckily for me, Mr. Ackerman wrote a fantastic article that summarized most of these points far more comprehensively than I have time for.
Most interestingly to me is that his advisors are relishing the opportunity to compare their vision of foreign policy to that of that of Senator McCain -- they recoginze the opportunity to draw clear lines of demarcation. It also strikes me as a good combination of the type of idealistic AND realistic foreign policy vision that this country can finally build around with the Cold War being over. Understanding the need to combat nuclear and other types of weapons proliferation; attacking the actual dangerous thugs of al Qaeda where they go; promoting institutions and dignity in the developing world where autocracy and terrorism flourish; and building institutions in the international community to do all these things is a broad and powerful vision of what a renewed American international leadership can look like.
For a little more background on Obama's foreign policy inner circle I dug up the following:
Denis McDonough at Think Progress *Note that this definitely is of a mind with Obama's decision to keep funding the war even though he opposed it in 2002/2003, and is definitely not an explanation that will please the most die-hard anti-war voters. This very much explains the reticence of Senators like Obama and Jim Webb to vote against appropriations requests and to get into a game of chicken with the war, but in my mind it does not take away from the overall vision being proposed in this article.
In my brief searches, I couldn't find any articles by these advisors in 2002 or 2003 a la Jim Webb warning us against this invasion. Still, I take the thrust of this article and the others written about this team at face value -- that these advisors almost unanimously counseled against invading Iraq in 2002.
Foreign policy is the one area where the President is given the most latitude in our Constitutional structure -- the ability to set priorities in this arena will be perhaps the most important weapon this country has to try to begin repairing the damage from the Bush Presidency. And Barack Obama's promise to think anew about our obligations, priorities, and ability to effect positive change internationally is in my mind where he provides the biggest difference between himself and Senator Clinton.
Obama is clearly the candidate who is best positioned to make the argument against McCain this fall, and reclaim national security issues as a strength for Democrats -- finally getting away from the post-Vietnam view that Democrats have to blindly "out-tough" Republicans...